Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

Actually, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is a little more complex than you suggest. Constantine called the council of Nicea, but it is not clear that controlled the outcome. The "morphing" of Jesus into the Christ had already been going on for centuries, and it involved a lot of religious and political debate amongst Christian bishops. It centered on debates about the nature of Christ. From the beginning, Christians had been worshiping him as God. But this created profound philosophical difficulties. Different parties arose. Here's a snippet from the wiki article:

The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy. Arius, a Libyan presbyter in Alexandria, had declared that although the Son was divine, he was a created being and therefore not co-essential with the Father, and "there was when he was not,"[10] This made Jesus less than the Father, which posed soteriological challenges for the nascent doctrine of the Trinity.[11] Arius's teaching provoked a serious crisis.

The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.

Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

I hope you keep working hard to find the truth, but alas, you will not get it from John Spong. He is right to question traditional Christianity and is right that the veneration of Mary is wrong, but he is off the mark on many other biblical doctrines.

Jesus was in the tomb 3 full days and nights, no less and no longer. John Spong does not believe in the virgin birth. He might sound very knowledgeable and plausible, but he is quite frankly wrong!!

Please, I am on your side for wanting to find the truth, but you are not getting it from John Spong.

I truly hope you also listen to others like you, who are working hard to know the truth and pass it on. I will reason with you from the Bible if you are prepared to reason things out. Have you followed the thread 'Jesus is not God' ? This is the only one point I agree with John Spong, but he is failing to understand the gospel writings and wants to subtract from what is written. It is the written words that have to be correctly understood. I regard the New Testament to be equally inspired from God as the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. There is a consistent and coherent message throughout all the Bible and if people have not found what that coherent message is, they have not found the whole truth of God's revelation to us.

I hope you keep working hard to find the truth, but alas, you will not get it from John Spong. He is right to question traditional Christianity and is right that the veneration of Mary is wrong, but he is off the mark on many other biblical doctrines.

Jesus was in the tomb 3 full days and nights, no less and no longer. John Spong does not believe in the virgin birth. He might sound very knowledgeable and plausible, but he is quite frankly wrong!!

Please, I am on your side for wanting to find the truth, but you are not getting it from John Spong.

I truly hope you also listen to others like you, who are working hard to know the truth and pass it on. I will reason with you from the Bible if you are prepared to reason things out. Have you followed the thread 'Jesus is not God' ? This is the only one point I agree with John Spong, but he is failing to understand the gospel writings and wants to subtract from what is written. It is the written words that have to be correctly understood. I regard the New Testament to be equally inspired from God as the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. There is a consistent and coherent message throughout all the Bible and if people have not found what that coherent message is, they have not found the whole truth of God's revelation to us.

I will watch for your posts on the forum.

David

I am there for finding truth.

Is this scohlar as wrong as Spong in terms of the bible being inspired?

Hey DL
Bart Ehrman talks alot about the Gospel of Peter that is not in the Bible. He is seems to have been a born-again-Christian now turned agnostic. I have not found anything he has said in this video of any value. I think your time would be better studying what the Bible says than listening to these people. Please do not expect me to sit through another hour-long video like this. It is a waste of my time.

Since I do not agree with Christendom in general and think that many professed Christians do not know who the true God is or who the real Jesus is, so they are misguided on many doctrines. If I understand you correctly, I take it that you accept Jesus is not God. You might be better studying some of the material published on this website: http://www.carelinks.net/litind.htm
If you have any questions or comments after reading up on the various subjects, then begin a thread on the forum and let's discuss these things from the Bible.
All the best,
David